🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:53:01 +0000, Huge wrote:

> On 2018-02-21, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>>> 
>>> Across the country, the number of computer science majors at doctoral
>>> institutions has more than tripled in the last decade. It’s much
>>> hotter than it was during the dot-com blitz in the late 1990s,
>>> according to the national Computing Research Association. The group
>>> refers to the current surge as “Generation CS,” fueled by the
>>> pervasiveness of computing across society and the plethora of jobs,
>>> some with six-figure salaries and eye-popping signing bonuses.
>>> 
>>> for full article please see:
>>> http://www.philly.com/philly/education/hot-major-on-campus-computer-
science-20180218.html
>>> 
>>> 
>> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming...
>> but I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in
>> this for the money.
> 
> That's what happened last time.

We used to offer an 'escape route' at the end of the first year. A joint 
Honours degree in computing (not CS) and business. Qite a good take-up, 
and it filtered out most of those who weren't really interested.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

Charles Richmond wrote:
> On 2/21/2018 4:58 PM, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2018-02-21, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>>>>
>>>> Across the country, the number of computer science majors
>>>> at doctoral institutions has more than tripled in the last
>>>> decade. It’s much hotter than it was during the dot-com
>>>> blitz in the late 1990s, according to the national Computing
>>>> Research Association. The group refers to the current surge
>>>> as “Generation CS,” fueled by the pervasiveness of computing
>>>> across society and the plethora of jobs, some with six-figure
>>>> salaries and eye-popping signing bonuses.
>>>>
>>>> for full article please see:
>>>> http://www.philly.com/philly/education/hot-major-on-campus-computer-scien
ce-20180218.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming... but
>>> I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in this for
>>> the money.
>>>
>>
>> I rememebr it being said that medicine is very popular (in schools)
>> until the first corpse has to be dissected, and it may be the same
>> for computers, when the first debugging has to be done.
>>
>>
>
> Debugging can be challenging, but *not* as repugnant and off-putting as
> cutting up a human body IMO.  Some few actually enjoy debugging... I've
> not been in that rare company myself.

JMF always said that he wrote code so he could have fun debugging.

/BAH

Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:53:01 +0000, Huge wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-02-21, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2018 3:08 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> The Phila Inqr reported that compsci is a hot major.
>>>> 
>>>> Across the country, the number of computer science majors at doctoral
>>>> institutions has more than tripled in the last decade. It’s much
>>>> hotter than it was during the dot-com blitz in the late 1990s,
>>>> according to the national Computing Research Association. The group
>>>> refers to the current surge as “Generation CS,” fueled by the
>>>> pervasiveness of computing across society and the plethora of jobs,
>>>> some with six-figure salaries and eye-popping signing bonuses.
>>>> 
>>>> for full article please see:
>>>> http://www.philly.com/philly/education/hot-major-on-campus-computer-
> science-20180218.html
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> I hope this reflects a true interest in computers and programming...
>>> but I fear a generation of half-baked programmers who are *only* in
>>> this for the money.
>> 
>> That's what happened last time.
> 
> We used to offer an 'escape route' at the end of the first year. A joint 
> Honours degree in computing (not CS) and business. Qite a good take-up, 
> and it filtered out most of those who weren't really interested.
> 

The problem with going from IT to management in most places seems to be
that you're labeled a computer geek and have to work vey hard to erase the
label. Businesses seem like to like me to like to promote people with
non-technical  backgrounds, and of course MBAs for upper management. It's
almost like the way to get promoted from a computer job is to be a terrible
programmer.

-- 
Pete

On 2018-02-22, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The problem with going from IT to management in most places seems to be
> that you're labeled a computer geek and have to work vey hard to erase
> the label. Businesses seem like to like me to like to promote people with
> non-technical  backgrounds, and of course MBAs for upper management. It's
> almost like the way to get promoted from a computer job is to be a terrible
> programmer.

The process is probably driven from both ends; the terrible programmers
have properties that make them attractive to management, and the programming
department can't wait to promote them out of harm's way.

A lot of prominent managers started out as terrible programmers
<cough>Gates<cough>.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On Thu, 2018-02-22, Peter Flass wrote:
> Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> On 2/21/2018 4:58 PM, ma...@mail.com wrote:
...
>>> I rememebr it being said that medicine is very popular (in
>>> schools) until the first corpse has to be dissected, and it may be
>>> the same for computers, when the first debugging has to be done.
>> 
>> Debugging can be challenging, but *not* as repugnant and
>> off-putting as cutting up a human body IMO.  Some few actually
>> enjoy debugging... I've not been in that rare company myself.
>
> Sometimes it's fun, or at least satisfying when you get to the "aha
> moment."

I like debugging, or more generally troubleshooting.  Apart from the
stress, and the possibility of failure.

Things like getting reports of failures from customer sites at the
other side of the world, gathering the scant evidence, and trying to
find ways to reproduce the problem.  Or devising ways of getting more
information.

On the other hand, I feel uneasy when I'm just writing code and noone
is going to run it for real until a year later.  The code isn't
complete until it's in production.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On 2/22/2018 4:54 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-22, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2018 4:58 PM, ma...@mail.com wrote:
> ...
>>>> I rememebr it being said that medicine is very popular (in
>>>> schools) until the first corpse has to be dissected, and it may be
>>>> the same for computers, when the first debugging has to be done.
>>>
>>> Debugging can be challenging, but *not* as repugnant and
>>> off-putting as cutting up a human body IMO.  Some few actually
>>> enjoy debugging... I've not been in that rare company myself.
>>
>> Sometimes it's fun, or at least satisfying when you get to the "aha
>> moment."
> 
> I like debugging, or more generally troubleshooting.  Apart from the
> stress, and the possibility of failure.
> 
> Things like getting reports of failures from customer sites at the
> other side of the world, gathering the scant evidence, and trying to
> find ways to reproduce the problem.  Or devising ways of getting more
> information.
> 
> On the other hand, I feel uneasy when I'm just writing code and no one
> is going to run it for real until a year later.  The code isn't
> complete until it's in production.
> 

In a book entitled _The Devouring Fungus and Other Tales of the Computer 
Age_, there was a story about a computer that crashed every Tuesday 
around four o'clock.  I was found that the janitor came in at that time 
and plugged in his electric floor buffer...  crashing the computer. 
After things were corrected, the higher-ups were told "it was a buffer 
problem"!!!

Fast forward to a PPoE, where a computer on-site and connected to the 
network... would crash each Thursday at two o'clock.  We got the guy at 
the effected site to sit around on Thursday afternoon to see what 
happened.  Sure enough, the cleaning help came in and plugged the vacuum 
cleaner in the computer's UPS!  Problem solved.

See... interest in computer humor can be helpful!  :-)

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2018-02-23, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> In a book entitled _The Devouring Fungus and Other Tales of the Computer 
> Age_, there was a story about a computer that crashed every Tuesday 
> around four o'clock.  I was found that the janitor came in at that time 
> and plugged in his electric floor buffer...  crashing the computer. 
> After things were corrected, the higher-ups were told "it was a buffer 
> problem"!!!
>
> Fast forward to a PPoE, where a computer on-site and connected to the 
> network... would crash each Thursday at two o'clock.  We got the guy at 
> the effected site to sit around on Thursday afternoon to see what 
> happened.  Sure enough, the cleaning help came in and plugged the vacuum 
> cleaner in the computer's UPS!  Problem solved.
>
> See... interest in computer humor can be helpful!  :-)

The story I like (and I read it here, haven't read the book but it
appears I should) was about the system that would go down overnight
so someone stayed around all night to watch it.  In the wee hours a
janitor would enter the room and push his cart between two rows of
disk drives; there was just enough room to do this and if the cart
wobbled it would hit the offline button on one of the drives.

The brilliance of the solution was that instead of moving the drives
a bit farther apart - which would reduce but not eliminate the problem -
they moved the drives just enough closer together that there was no
longer room for the janitor to get the cart between them at all.
That solved the problem completely and permanently.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 23 Feb 2018 09:59:46 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> Or they're good programmers and the Peter Principle means they get
> promoted into management jobs they hate and are no good at. [FX: waves]

	Which is one reason I make sure to mention that I don't do
management at job interviews.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2018 09:59:46 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Or they're good programmers and the Peter Principle means they get
>> promoted into management jobs they hate and are no good at. [FX: waves]
> 
> 	Which is one reason I make sure to mention that I don't do
> management at job interviews.
> 

You're the type of guy I'd hire. No worries about you sashaying off. I
would want one guy who could, and would want to, move into my job, but
after that, give me a bunch of people who are happy to be programmers.

-- 
Pete

On 22 Feb 2018 22:54:45 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
wrote:

[snip]

>On the other hand, I feel uneasy when I'm just writing code and noone
>is going to run it for real until a year later.  The code isn't
>complete until it's in production.

     Interestingly, I have just such a situation this morning.  The
code isnot working.  My system and the Production systems are just
different enough in this area that there may be some gymnastics
required.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On 2018-02-23, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2018-02-22, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-02-22, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with going from IT to management in most places seems to be
>>> that you're labeled a computer geek and have to work vey hard to erase
>>> the label. Businesses seem like to like me to like to promote people with
>>> non-technical  backgrounds, and of course MBAs for upper management. It's
>>> almost like the way to get promoted from a computer job is to be a terrible
>>> programmer.
>>
>> The process is probably driven from both ends; the terrible programmers
>> have properties that make them attractive to management, and the programming
>> department can't wait to promote them out of harm's way.
>
> Or they're good programmers and the Peter Principle means they get promoted
> into management jobs they hate and are no good at. [FX: waves]
>
>> A lot of prominent managers started out as terrible programmers
>> <cough>Gates<cough>.
>
> *Was* he a "terrible programmer"?

Perhaps that's an overstatement; I said "terrible" to match the original
posting (see above).  Otherwise, I would say "mediocre".

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 2:54:36 AM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote:

> > I rememebr it being said that medicine is very popular (in schools)
> > until the first corpse has to be dissected, and it may be the same
> > for computers, when the first debugging has to be done.

> Debugging can be challenging, but *not* as repugnant and off-putting as 
> cutting up a human body IMO.  Some few actually enjoy debugging... I've 
> not been in that rare company myself.

In my own observation, most programmers enjoy debugging, they
like the challenge of it, like the digging.

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 2:19:09 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:

> The problem with going from IT to management in most places seems to be
> that you're labeled a computer geek and have to work vey hard to erase the
> label. Businesses seem like to like me to like to promote people with
> non-technical  backgrounds, and of course MBAs for upper management. It's
> almost like the way to get promoted from a computer job is to be a terrible
> programmer.

I've never heard of a lousy programmer being promoted.  Usually,
the bad ones are fired or at best, shunted aside where they could
do the least damage.

One colleague was just promoted to manager.  She was qualified 
for that because:
1) She is technically very skilled and very smart.  Knows her
applications thoroughly.  Fast at solving problems.
2) She works hard and efficiently.  Comes in early and stays late.

HOWEVER, she is one of the techie-types I personally would not
have promoted--this is because she is difficult to get along
with.  She has very little patience, and gets angry easily.
She loses her temper and will scream at people who screw up.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:50:54 -0800 (PST)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> I've never heard of a lousy programmer being promoted.  Usually,
> the bad ones are fired or at best, shunted aside where they could
> do the least damage.

Internally thought to be Documentation.  Effect for the customers 
though?


Mike

On Thu, 2018-02-22, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
...
> I like debugging, or more generally troubleshooting.  Apart from the
> stress, and the possibility of failure.
>
> Things like getting reports of failures from customer sites at the
> other side of the world, gathering the scant evidence, and trying to
> find ways to reproduce the problem.  Or devising ways of getting more
> information.

Like the problem I've investigating on and off for the past two weeks,
using various improvised techniques.  The latest theory is it's caused
by the Olympic Games and will go away on Sunday ...

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On Fri, 2018-02-23, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2018 22:54:45 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>On the other hand, I feel uneasy when I'm just writing code and noone
>>is going to run it for real until a year later.  The code isn't
>>complete until it's in production.
>
> Interestingly, I have just such a situation this morning.  The code
> is not working.

I was probably unclear: I meant something more specific:

- A long distance in space and time between the programmer and the
  user is a problem.
- You're not done until someone is using your code as intended.

Sometimes (not so much recently) I meet programmers who think their
job is to write the code, make it compile, ship it off to testing --
and then they're done.  That's an inefficient and boring way to work,
IMHO.

> My system and the Production systems are just different enough in
> this area that there may be some gymnastics required.

Ah, yes.  It's good when those two to be similar, but it's not always
feasible.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

On 24 Feb 2018 08:19:22 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
wrote:

>On Fri, 2018-02-23, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On 22 Feb 2018 22:54:45 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>On the other hand, I feel uneasy when I'm just writing code and noone
>>>is going to run it for real until a year later.  The code isn't
>>>complete until it's in production.
>>
>> Interestingly, I have just such a situation this morning.  The code
>> is not working.
>
>I was probably unclear: I meant something more specific:
>
>- A long distance in space and time between the programmer and the
>  user is a problem.
>- You're not done until someone is using your code as intended.
>
>Sometimes (not so much recently) I meet programmers who think their
>job is to write the code, make it compile, ship it off to testing --
>and then they're done.  That's an inefficient and boring way to work,
>IMHO.

Especially when "testing" has no clue what they are testing for or
why.

>> My system and the Production systems are just different enough in
>> this area that there may be some gymnastics required.
>
>Ah, yes.  It's good when those two to be similar, but it's not always
>feasible.
>
>/Jorgen

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The problem with going from IT to management in most places seems to be
>that you're labeled a computer geek and have to work vey hard to erase the
>label. Businesses seem like to like me to like to promote people with
>non-technical  backgrounds, and of course MBAs for upper management. It's
>almost like the way to get promoted from a computer job is to be a terrible
>programmer.

>-- 
>Pete

Gets the person out of where they can do real damage and into 
management where they probably do on average about the same level
of damage as the average manager.
-- 
  O wad some Power the giftie gie us
  To see oursels as ithers see us!
  It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
  An' foolish notion:

Mike Causer <m.r.c...@gogglemail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:50:54 -0800 (PST)
>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>> I've never heard of a lousy programmer being promoted.  Usually,
>> the bad ones are fired or at best, shunted aside where they could
>> do the least damage.

>Internally thought to be Documentation.  Effect for the customers 
>though?


>Mike

No matter, all documentation is horrid.
-- 
  O wad some Power the giftie gie us
  To see oursels as ithers see us!
  It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
  An' foolish notion:

On 24 Feb 2018 08:19:22 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
wrote:

>On Fri, 2018-02-23, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On 22 Feb 2018 22:54:45 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>On the other hand, I feel uneasy when I'm just writing code and noone
>>>is going to run it for real until a year later.  The code isn't
>>>complete until it's in production.
>>
>> Interestingly, I have just such a situation this morning.  The code
>> is not working.
>
>I was probably unclear: I meant something more specific:
>
>- A long distance in space and time between the programmer and the
>  user is a problem.
>- You're not done until someone is using your code as intended.

     I live in Kamloops, BC.  The business is in Ferndale, WA. Google
Maps says 201 miles.  I wrote the code about a year ago.

>Sometimes (not so much recently) I meet programmers who think their
>job is to write the code, make it compile, ship it off to testing --
>and then they're done.  That's an inefficient and boring way to work,
>IMHO.
>
>> My system and the Production systems are just different enough in
>> this area that there may be some gymnastics required.
>
>Ah, yes.  It's good when those two to be similar, but it's not always
>feasible.

     Quite.

     I solved the problem.  It turned out to be a race condition that
I thought was not an issue with the second way I had worked out to do
the task.  It had not been when I tested.  Their system had failed on
two reports; mine had failed on only one.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 2:19:09 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
>> The problem with going from IT to management in most places seems to be
>> that you're labeled a computer geek and have to work vey hard to erase the
>> label. Businesses seem like to like me to like to promote people with
>> non-technical  backgrounds, and of course MBAs for upper management. It's
>> almost like the way to get promoted from a computer job is to be a terrible
>> programmer.
> 
> I've never heard of a lousy programmer being promoted.  Usually,
> the bad ones are fired or at best, shunted aside where they could
> do the least damage.

I have, and know of many others who left and got management jobs elsewhere.

> 
> One colleague was just promoted to manager.  She was qualified 
> for that because:
> 1) She is technically very skilled and very smart.  Knows her
> applications thoroughly.  Fast at solving problems.
> 2) She works hard and efficiently.  Comes in early and stays late.
> 
> HOWEVER, she is one of the techie-types I personally would not
> have promoted--this is because she is difficult to get along
> with.  She has very little patience, and gets angry easily.
> She loses her temper and will scream at people who screw up.
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Pete

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-02-24, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Mike Causer <m.r.c...@gogglemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:50:54 -0800 (PST)
>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> 
>>>> I've never heard of a lousy programmer being promoted.  Usually,
>>>> the bad ones are fired or at best, shunted aside where they could
>>>> do the least damage.
>> 
>>> Internally thought to be Documentation.  Effect for the customers 
>>> though?
>> 
>> 
>>> Mike
>> 
>> No matter, all documentation is horrid.
> 
> Care to elaborate?
> 
> 

Ever tried to write documentation? It's hard to get it right.

-- 
Pete

On Sat, 2018-02-24, J  Clarke wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2018 08:19:22 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se>
> wrote:
...
>>Sometimes (not so much recently) I meet programmers who think their
>>job is to write the code, make it compile, ship it off to testing --
>>and then they're done.  That's an inefficient and boring way to work,
>>IMHO.
>
> Especially when "testing" has no clue what they are testing for or
> why.

Some organizations value testing, some apparently do not.  In one
workplace of mine, the test department was large, and most people who
had a clue about the product as a whole worked there.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2018-02-24, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Mike Causer <m.r.c...@gogglemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:50:54 -0800 (PST)
>>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> I've never heard of a lousy programmer being promoted.  Usually,
>>>>> the bad ones are fired or at best, shunted aside where they could
>>>>> do the least damage.
>>> 
>>>> Internally thought to be Documentation.  Effect for the customers 
>>>> though?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> No matter, all documentation is horrid.
>> 
>> Care to elaborate?
>
> Ever tried to write documentation? It's hard to get it right.

Lots and lots.

I actually enjoy it as it helps me clarify the code I'm writing
and be sure I test all the features.

I would often write something up about system function then
try to figure out a test that would verify the function, then
include test results in the documentation as an example.

Writing CSS that showed the results as if it was a screen
display or printed results just added to the fun.
For printed results, I used a tiled image of green and white
that looked just like green bar paper.  The screen displays
had a rounded border just like older display tubes.

-- 
Dan Espen

On 2/25/2018 12:53 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 23:22:42 -0600, Charles Richmond
> <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/23/2018 4:15 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:55:33 -0800, hancock4 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 8:03:12 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And, of course, after slaving over it for hours, a co worker walking by
>>>>> will spot it instantly.
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes, so true!  Been there, done that on both sides many times (helped
>>>> someone passing by their desk, and was helped by someone passing by me.)
>>>>
>>>> Amazing how much a fresh pair of eyes can see.
>>>
>>> Best one was passing someone on the stairs when I was a graduate student.
>>> He was porting a particular program to thePDP-8, and mentioned that it
>>> was all fine, except that one component misbehaved in a particular way
>>> after a previous error message had been issued.
>>>
>>> I said "Ah, you're overwriting the third word up in (mumble) data
>>> structure at the base of the stack". And so it was.
>>>
>>
>> If you have *not* read "Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal", you really
>> need to read it.
>>
>> "Any Real Programmer will tell you that all the Structured Coding in the
>> world won't help you solve a problem like that -- it takes actual talent."
>>
>> http://web.mit.edu/humor/Computers/real.programmers
> 
> Structured programming is not about "solving problems", it is about
> avoiding creating unnecessary ones.  Anybody who has tried to figure
> out what is going on in somebody else long retired's uncommenented
> spaghetti APL (you think spaghetti BASIC is bad, you ain't seen
> _nothin_ yet) instantly develops a huge appreciation for structured
> programming.
> 

Yes, I subscribe to the use of structured code.  But the "real 
Programmers..." article is still tongue-in-cheek funny!!!  And it's true 
that some programmers have a talent *not* easily taught to others...

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> writes:

> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> Ever tried to write documentation? It's hard to get it right.
> 
> Lots and lots.
> 
> I actually enjoy it as it helps me clarify the code I'm writing
> and be sure I test all the features.

As a total, unabashed amateur, I imagined myself excessively nerdish
because I  commented all my code in sufficient detail so I'd
understand it myself 10 years later (or even the next week.)

Then by happenstance, I gave some of my code to a Real Programmer --
whose first response was to compliment me on the documentation.
That's nice.  Um, rather than on the code.  Hmmm... Well, at least not
a risible habit.


-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

On 2018-02-25, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2018-02-25, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [32 lines snipped]
>
>>> Structured programming is not about "solving problems", it is about
>>> avoiding creating unnecessary ones.  Anybody who has tried to figure
>>> out what is going on in somebody else long retired's uncommenented
>>> spaghetti APL (you think spaghetti BASIC is bad, you ain't seen
>>> _nothin_ yet) instantly develops a huge appreciation for structured
>>> programming.
>>
>> Unfortunately, good structured programming takes WORK. What gave it a bad
>> name were the "programmers" who thought that pulling arbitrary groups of
>> statements into subroutines was all that was necessary to produce good
>> code.

'zackly.  The real zealots treated the number of subroutine calls as
a figure of merit.  Such people produced code that was the programming
equivalent of a huge bureaucracy.

> Perhaps the old saw about it being possible to write spaghetti code
> in any language heeds extending to include any methodology?

IMHO the undisciplined use of subroutine calls is as bad as the
undisciplined use of GOTOs.  The result is spaghetti either way,
except with subroutine calls you're running double strands.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On 2018-02-25, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> If you have *not* read "Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal", you really 
> need to read it.
>
> "Any Real Programmer will tell you that all the Structured Coding in the 
> world won't help you solve a problem like that -- it takes actual talent."

The way I liked to put it: "Structured Programming is totally inadequate
against unstructured applications."

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

On Sun, 2018-02-25, Dan Espen wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2018-02-24, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

...
>>>> No matter, all documentation is horrid.
>>> 
>>> Care to elaborate?
>>
>> Ever tried to write documentation? It's hard to get it right.
>
> Lots and lots.
>
> I actually enjoy it as it helps me clarify the code I'm writing
> and be sure I test all the features.

I assume you mean the end user documentation.

That's a strategy that works really well for me, too.  I'm only rarely
allowed to do it at work, though -- the workflow tends to be that
Someone Else writes the documentation long after the feature is
finished and tested (by testers who haven't read the documentation).

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> writes:

> On Sun, 2018-02-25, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-02-24, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>> No matter, all documentation is horrid.
>>>> 
>>>> Care to elaborate?
>>>
>>> Ever tried to write documentation? It's hard to get it right.
>>
>> Lots and lots.
>>
>> I actually enjoy it as it helps me clarify the code I'm writing
>> and be sure I test all the features.
>
> I assume you mean the end user documentation.

In a way.
During development I'd work on the release/features document.
Near release I'd copy or move stuff into the user manual.

> That's a strategy that works really well for me, too.  I'm only rarely
> allowed to do it at work, though -- the workflow tends to be that
> Someone Else writes the documentation long after the feature is
> finished and tested (by testers who haven't read the documentation).

I hate not being in control of the whole development process
including end user documentation.

-- 
Dan Espen